Legal Opinion

State v. Pakhnyuk

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 8, 2019No. A17-0474PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CHUTICH, Justice.

This appeal raises two issues. First, we must determine whether a defendant forfeits a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that is based on a statutory interpretation argument when he fails to raise it in the district court. We conclude that the forfeiture rule does not apply to such a challenge.

Second, we consider how to apply the intent element in subdivision 1(a) of Minnesota's criminal interference-with-privacy statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.746 (2018). Specifically, we must determine whether a criminal defendant charged with interference with privacy under…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Jones v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Barnhart v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Jama v. Immigration and Customs EnforcementSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  4. Lockhart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  5. Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power Co. v. MorSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. Jan Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2025
  2. Sean Michael Wocelka v. State of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2024
  3. Brian Matthew Nash v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2024
  4. Brian Matthew Nash v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2024
  5. Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State PatrolSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2024

40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API